Age of Empires 3

[davywavy]

In a fit of temporary insanity brought on by trace chemicals in takeaway food I recently bought Age of Empires 3. AOE 1 and 2 were both great games; 1 was groundbreaking but limited, and 2 was just plain great.
One of the greatest pleasures in both games were the historical campaigns; in 1 I could follow Alexander's campaigns or help Rome rise. In 2, I could crusade against the heathens as Barbarossa or fight off the infidels as Saladin. Both games stuck their campaigns firmly within history and this grounding added a considerable amount to the enjoyment of the game.

Playing the AOE 3 historical campaigns, I'm astonished to learn that not only did the Crusaders fight the Ottoman Turks for control of the Fountain of Youth in Florida, but that the American Revolution was triggered by the British launching unprovoked attacks on their own colonies at the behest of the Illuminati.
I can't wait for the next campaign, in which I assume Pocahontas must retrieve the Holy Grail stolen by Queen Victoria.

Ah, history. It's nothing like it.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's not much less accurate than the watered down versions taught in schools, and sounds a lot more fun.
Okay, so it's as true to life as Doom, but how's it play?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Hmn. Gameplay-wise, I'm not enjoying it as much as I did AOE 2 but that could be because I've largely seen it all before. Setting it in the Americas might have been a bit of an error on the part of the developers as it means thay've had to skip over a lot of history to make it acceptable - no slavery, for example.
It's got a lot going for it, but the weaknesses are enough to be distracting - it's like the developers knew the game had to have 'something' extra to differentiate it from previous additions to the series, but they didn't know what and so the changes from AOE 2 seen a little ill-thought-out.

Very pretty indeed, gamneplay average to good, and historical accuracy = 0.

[(Anonymous)]

No slavery? Shame.
I was hoping for a scenario in which George Washington was forced by the rascally British to keep his slaves, and how he became a revolutionary out of desperation to liberate them.
They could've at least made it funny, since it seems the truth is politically uncomfortable.
Shall I post Far Cry? On a hunch, I'm hanging fire on 'Dark Places' for a while.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, send Far Cry - I'll try and get it finished before Lent, as I'll be giving up FPS's again this year.

Hail Caesar!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

If you want a reasonably accurate historical experience, get "Rome: Total War" (although to be fair I was a bit surprised to find the Brits had conquered everywhere south to Narbonnesis (i.e. southern France)). Real events are posted every now and again and some change the game (like plagues, the re-organisation of the roman military by Marius etc.)

The battles and sieges are excellent and having a family tree with generals who get better and quirkier over time until they (hopefully!) die of old age is excellent.

Having conquered Gaul, Spain, Britain and Macedon over Xmas, I'm about to march on Rome.

Re: Hail Caesar!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I've just played through Shogun and Mediaeval, and I'm rather Total Warred out at the moment - I may give it a try in six months. Unless they've made some radical changes to the AI, I know how the game engine thinks and it got kinda boring towards the end.

Re: Hail Caesar!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I haven't played the previous 2, but I can imagine what you mean. If you do ever get it, you can take me on instead of the PC. I am, at least, more random than an AI.

Re: Hail Caesar!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Too many battles won with the simple tactic of 'Pile all my troops on the enemy general, kill him, watch enemy army run away'. Of course, I'm leery of playing actual people - my experiences of playing pretty much anything online have been experiences of getting roundly pasted in next to no time.

Re: Hail Caesar!

[lexx-uk.livejournal.com]

That don't work so well with Rome on a reasonable dificulty level Multiple generals can take the field and compitent captains can take over. plus only those who can see him have a small chance of breaking.

Marching on Rome on high levels is a near-impossable embuggerance of a task.

I rave, much improved on the first two.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

In B&W2 the Greeks have to battle the Aztecs....

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You also have a Gigantic Cow defending your village. AOE at least tried for historical accuracy in the first two instalments...

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

That is a good point. My huge cow nulls any credibility the game could have had.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The 'Huge Cow Effect' is a well known one in both game-design circles.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Pah - I'm currently muddling my way through the end of WWII in Civilisation II. Currently, as Churchill, I've brokered peace with Hitler and we're both going to take on Stalin. Unfortunately, Roosevelt has teamed up with Stalin, so I think we might be screwed.

[applez.livejournal.com]

CivII? Pah, there's always the cheat mode in very easy reach... ;-)

A couple of issues I have with the Europe war map in CivII...

No city on Sicily; Malta has insufficient air cover (compared with historical record); and there's no city in Iceland; and Norway is underdeveloped (they really should have at least an airbase for Kristiansand and Narvik, preferably a city, at least for Narvik). Rather critical points on the shipping lanes.

Frankly, there should be more Iron in Sweden, have them quickly capitulate to the Nazis, and have Finnish forces much further north to directly interdict the Russian port.

Also ... a bit odd to lack any British Indian Army to deploy in Egypt or Iran at various stages.

Then again, CivII just doesn't have the strategic resource value CivIII offers, which I think is a crucial game-historical element.

Too bad Civ III only has the Pacific WW2 for a scenario, but at least that one has proper cloaked submarine combat, and destoryers that can carry some ground forces.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Blessed edutainment ... that's why we have people insisting on divine intent in evolution. ;-)

[(Anonymous)]

Which, because it deals with intangibles, can't be proven one way or another. Whilst science can demonstrate with a good degree of certainty how we came to be, it doesn't presume to explain why. Attempting to dress up theological argument as science isn't going to fool anyone. I half read an intelligent design book, which was just a string of pretty pictures of animals explaining how they were 'irreducably complex' and thus couldn't have happened by accident - the same argument reiterated over and over again, basically because it's the only one they have - and was annoyed. Mostly because I'd wasted an evening. Also, in part because, like most people, I'd like to think the world had a meaning and had picked up this book with an open minded outlook, only to put it down and reach for a bottle. I don't have a problem with schools establishing an awareness of ID, but I reckon I'd be pressed to use more than 100 words doing so, it's such a sparsely filled out framework. Perhaps schedule 2 minutes in the curriculum?

[applez.livejournal.com]

2 minutes? Thin end of the wedge my friend, thin end of the wedge.

[(Anonymous)]

It's all the time I'm prepared to waste on it.